- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Let people call themselves what they want, just don't force me to call it that.
????
not sure what you mean or are saying?
what would you be "forced" to call anybody?
I don't want it legally defined as marriage. Just have the state issue partnership licenses and end it at that.
Only logical anti-gay marriage position that I know of is the one that takes government out of the marriage business altogether. This position is usually based on not wanting to allow special privileges for folks just because they are married.
hmmmm well not sure that would be anti-gay though unless im misunderstanding. That would just be anti government relating to marriage and in that case gay marriage would/could still be allowed just without the government involvement.
Probably. It's just the only argument towards forbidding gay marriage that I've ever seen that has any logic and reasonableness to it.
fair enough just looking for something more specific against only gay marriage but thanks!
No problem. Most of the anti-GM crowd posts during the day. I'm SURE you'll get a few commenting, but I doubt that there will be any logic to their reasoning.
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.
Everyone who complains about the "traditional meaning" of marriage is missing one extremely important fact. The traditional meaning of marriage does NOT involve the state, it involves a church. The traditional meaning is a promise between a man and woman between God, not a court. The government has no claim to be issuing "traditional marriages" between people as they are a secular body and claim no religious authority. In other words, all that marriage is to the gov't is something you put on your tax forms, which i have no problem letting two men or women do.
I don't think its wrong, but its pretty damn stupid.
What are we "protecting" when we vote against gay marriage? The right to complain hypocritically?
There is really no point to be against it, other than standing behind an age-old argument that marriage is an "institution" and that it is an entity itself.
We make too big a deal out of marriage really, meanwhile our nation has the highest divorce rate. Blocking gay marriage is useless and it makes those supporters look like idiots.
So if we ever vote to make gay marriage legal, it would be dandy. I personally would not vote because I simply don't care, it doesn't affect me personally so why should I?
Well define morals?
morals based on what? religion? feelings? etc.
heres are small example of what some people find "morally wrong"
sorry but in america theres no logic on forcing your morals on me especially when there is no victim.
Murder, child molesting, stealing those are also morals but they have a victium and theres not consent.
Ill need more than that. again I totally respect YOUR right to have YOUR morals you just dont get to force them on others. Thats way to arrogant and selfish for me
Rules for proper conduct.
1 It doesn't matter what they're based on. What matters is that they are agreed upon, taught to our children, and rigorously enforced.
2 Some people have stupid morals and shouldn't be allowed to make laws. Theoretically, this is what the representative republic is supposed to protect us from-- stupid people with stupid morals making stupid laws. In practice, of course, we find that these stupid people are in the majority and want to be governed by people like them. Democracy is nothing if not a flawed institution.
3 Consent and victimhood are both moral notions that must be defined by the law before they can be enforced. Child molestation is the perfect example, because it is only a crime by virtue of the fact that the law defines children of being incapable of giving consent-- and thus may be prosecuted despite the victim's wishes.
4 Theft is the same. In order for there to be a victim of theft, we have to morally define property and determine the rules by which people may own and exchange property.
5 Even murder must be defined morally before it can be enforced as law. Otherwise, what is the difference between murder and manslaughter? What is the acceptable use of force in self-defense? In defense of one's home?
6The answers to all of these questions are moral values. There is no categorical difference between the law which prohibits murder and the laws that prohibit homosexual marriage. The only difference is that most people generally agree with the laws on murder-- with some notable exceptions, such as assisted suicide-- while the laws on homosexual marriage are highly controversial.
7 By having a system of laws, any laws, we are forcing our morals upon anyone who does not agree with them. By trying to tell me what the government-- my government-- can and can not do, you are trying to force your morals not only upon me, but upon the rest of society. You are proclaiming that your moral values, your specific notions of tolerance and liberty, are superior to the moral values of everyone who disagrees with you and that we should be forced to abide by them.
8 I happen to agree with you on gay marriage. It isn't wrong and it shouldn't be prohibited. But I can guarantee you there are at least a dozen things we disagree about in which the law takes your side-- and they are all based on the same wholly subjective moral values that you claim not to be forcing upon anyone.
of course it matters in america what the morals are based on! If e dont look at what they are based on rights like freedom of speech and religion can be greatly hindered
so OTHER peole have stupid morals but yours is fine? got it lol
these examples the way YOU are using them are MEANINGLESS for the debate at hand, for gay marriage there is NO victim so there no need for law to define it. so that was a waste for "this debate"
you actually couldnt be more wrong I am actually for a WIN WIN situation if you want to marry gay, you do, if you dont you dont. That isnt forcing ANYBODY to do anything sorry LMAO
If I think and feel that something is morally wrong, then I think it's absolutely acceptable to use the government to try to put a stop to it. That is what government is for.
Let people call themselves what they want, just don't force me to call it that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?